of a privacy service and the passive holding of the domain name these elements are indications of a use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules

Complainant s business by passively holding the solaturbines.com domain name Finally Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s rights in the SOLAR and SOLAR TURBINES marks prior to registering the solaturbines.com domain name B

evidence that Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name and has been doing so since early 2011 Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name has often been held to demonstrate a lack of rights or legitimate interests as it does not

faith under the principles of passive holding It is consensus view that the lack of an active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy In such cases the panel must examine all the circumstances of the

domain name itself for sale Passive holding does not constitute legitimate noncommercial use By offering to sell the disputed domain name the Complainant is trying to take unfair advantage of the Complainant �s fame The Respondent was aware of

names redirect to identical holding pages and are being passively held Nevertheless the consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances

to an inactive website The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org In the past the disputed domain name was used to

Aug 7 2012 inactive use or passive holding of a disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name Here the resolving webpage displays the message This site is

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 The Domain Name has been

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Among the factors typically considered by panels to be relevant are � i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人。理� �如下：

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed Accordingly the

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of these cases the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

Case No D2000-0003 in case of passive holding Accordingly the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that

use application of the passive holding doctrine is appropriate The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant s extensively and well-known trademark Therefore the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant Further the

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i the

paragraph 4 c i of the Policy Passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services By previously using the Domain Name in connection with a website that simply copied the Complainant s own website the

found that inactive use or passive holding of the domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Here Complainant provides screenshots of the tdbsecureonline.com

2012 finding inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Given the forgoing Complainant s unrebutted showing that